Analytic Tools: Ensuring industry relevance for university-based R&D projects intending transfer. Joseph P. Lane & James Condron Center on Knowledge Translation.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
SBIR/STTR Origins... Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982 Stimulate technological innovation Meet federal R&D needs Foster and encourage participation.
Advertisements

KT for TT – Ensuring Technology- based R&D matters to Stakeholders
The concepts/mechanisms/tools for developing a Joint Programme: Critical issues and UNDG Joint Programme Guidance and formats.
Telling the Story of Canada’s Children A Comprehensive Approach to Accountability National Children’s Alliance November 26, 2004.
Acknowledgements Funding Partners:University at Buffalo (UB) & National Disability Authority (NDA Project Mentors:Prof. Joe Lane (UB), Dr. Ger Craddock(CEUD/NDA)
1 Graduates’ Attributes : EMF, EUR-ACE and Federal Educational Standards Alexander I. Chuchalin, Chair of the RAEE Accreditation Board Graduates’ Attributes.
Begin with Knowledge Translation; Have the End – Technology Transfer – in Mind Begin with Knowledge Translation; Have the End – Technology Transfer – in.
Principal Patent Analyst
Achieving Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer: Implications for Evaluation Presenter: Vathsala I. Stone University at Buffalo/
TTO Role in University / Corporate Partnership
How to Translate Knowledge in Three States: Discovery, Invention, Innovation Joseph P. Lane Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer University.
Getting from Knowledge to Action: Effectively communicating Research & Development value to multiple Stakeholder Groups. Joseph Lane & John Westbrook RESNA.
Innovation in Universal Design “Universal integration of research, education, innovation and enterprise at DIT GrangeGorman” Joseph P. Lane, University.
Need to Knowledge Model: A framework for achieving market Innovations through sponsored R&D Joseph P. Lane Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology.
Industry – The missing link between S&T Policy and Societal Benefit. Joseph P. Lane Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer University.
Vilnius Lithuania BSc.: Biochemistry Neuropsychology J.D.: University of Oregon LL.M.:University College London Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Regional Innovation Strategies José Luís Simões 2001/03/30 Reflections on US economic development policies: Meeting the ‘new economy’ challenge by Mikel.
Winning your next proposal: “Buzz Tactics” to increase the chances of success Joseph Lane, Jennifer Flagg, James Leahy Center on Knowledge Translation.
Resource Guide for Piloting the Caregiver Policy Lens Dr. Penny MacCourt “Supporting Caregivers of Older Adults” B.C. Psychogeriatric Association 2011.
Michalis Adamantiadis Transport Policy Adviser, SSATP SSATP Capacity Development Strategy Annual Meeting, December 2012.
Best Practices in Technology Transfer Jennifer L Flagg Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer University at Buffalo.
Toolbox CRC programme managers – Dag Kavlie, RCN Analysis of indicators used for CRC Monitoring and Evaluation Ljubljana, 15 September 2009.
KT for AT: Knowledge Translation Tools for R&D Projects Joseph P. Lane Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer
Expanding Product Accessibility with Primary Market Research Techniques Jennifer L Flagg Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer, University.
ESCAP’S Pro-Poor Public-Private Partnership (5P) Approach Presented by: Mr. Kohji Iwakami, Economic Affairs Officer, EDD, ESCAP.
Tools for Technical, Business & Consumer Analysis in AT Product Development: Expanding the Need to Knowledge Model Joseph P. Lane, Center on KT4TT University.
Managing & Communicating Knowledge in Three States Joseph P. Lane Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer School.
Bridging the Evidence Gap: Level Of Knowledge Use Survey - LOKUS as a Validated Instrument Joseph P. Lane Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology.
Bridging the Deliverable Gap: Improving Government’s approach to innovation intending social benefit. Joseph P. Lane Center on Knowledge Translation for.
The Case for Industry Leadership in STI Policy Implementation. Joseph P. Lane Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer
Knowledge Translation Conference KT Solutions for Overcoming Barriers to Research Use Hosted by SEDL’s Center on Knowledge Translation for Disability and.
The KT4TT Knowledge Base: Steps and Supporting Evidence to Improve Your Process! Webcast sponsored by SEDL September 29, 2010, 2:00 pm (Central) / 3:00.
Technology Transfer Principles: Methods, Knowledge States and Value Systems Underlying Successful Technological Innovation Joseph P. Lane, Director Center.
Is One Minute Madness?? Joseph P. Lane Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer University at Buffalo.
Evidence-based Management of R&D Projects Intending Market Deployment Joseph P. Lane, Director Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer.
Balancing Objectives and Needs of Industry and Academia: the Role of Government Presentation by Mary Cryan Meeting of National Councils for S&T Policy.
February 2, PM ET. Since the Summit… WE LISTENED…. Here’s what’s happening….. Curriculum Working Group is hard at work …… Why we are having these.
Stages of Research and Development
Fostering Valorisation of Publicly Funded Research Dr Pat Frain
Knowledge Translation Outcome Measurement
Four Models to Guide AT Projects Intending Innovative Technology Development Outcomes Joseph P. Lane Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer.
A prospective study of the translational process in the technology development and transfer projects of NIDILRR’s technology grantees: a qualitative study.
Where do Market Innovations come from? Not the Stork!
KT for AT: Knowledge Translation Tools for R&D Projects
Joseph P. Lane Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer
The Social Model for A/T Technology Transfer – AAATE 2010 “From Problem Identification to Social Validation: An Operational Model” Joseph P. Lane,
Bridging the Deliverable Gap: Improving Government’s approach to innovation intending social benefit. Joseph P. Lane Center on Knowledge Translation.
Need to Knowledge Model: A framework for achieving market Innovations through sponsored R&D Joseph P. Lane Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology.
Managing & Communicating Knowledge in Three States
Joseph P. Lane Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer
Joseph P. Lane, University at Buffalo
A prospective study of the translational process in the technology development and transfer projects of NIDILRR’s technology grantees: a qualitative study.
Four Models to Guide AT Projects Intending Innovative Technology Development Outcomes Joseph P. Lane Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer.
Tools for Technical, Business & Consumer Analysis in AT Product Development: Expanding the Need to Knowledge Model Joseph P. Lane, Center on KT4TT.
Joseph P. Lane & James Condron
Dr. Maria de Mello, President
Joseph Lane & John Westbrook
Industry – The missing link between S&T Policy and Societal Benefit.
Three States of Knowledge in Technological Innovation
Knowledge Translation Outcome Measurement
The Case for Industry Leadership in STI Policy Implementation.
AEA Annual Meeting , Nov , 2009 Achieving Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer: Implications for Evaluation Presenter: Vathsala I. Stone.
Is One Minute Madness?? Joseph P. Lane
RESNA 2018 Annual Conference
Knowledge Translation Across RERC Activities
Joseph P. Lane Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer
Reconciling Government Policies and Programs with Public Expectations: The Case of Innovation in AT Joseph P. Lane Center on Knowledge Translation.
Knowledge Utility results from Rigor in Methods & Relevance in Content
The Need to Knowledge (NtK) Model: Orienting Scholar “Technology Grantees” to Best Practices in Transfer & Commercialization Joseph P. Lane, Director.
Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer
Presentation transcript:

Analytic Tools: Ensuring industry relevance for university-based R&D projects intending transfer. Joseph P. Lane & James Condron Center on Knowledge Translation for Technology Transfer School of Public Health & Health Professions University at Buffalo (SUNY) Funded by NIDILRR, ACL/DHHS PR# 90DP0054

What’s this session about? It’s about clarifying the role of government-sponsored and university-based R&D projects intending to benefit society by generating innovative products and services; For programs intending societal benefit, the role of university R&D is within the broader context of the commercial marketplace. Sponsors and Investigators must subordinate their own expertise and incentives to the requirements of industry. The key to successful transfers of university-based technology is prior to grant engagement of corporations, and providing evidence deemed valid by industry.

Public Support for Knowledge Creation Grant-based Scientific Research Programs – Exploration to discover new knowledge about physical world (science/medicine). Grant-based Scholarship → Peer System → Publish for Tenure. Contract R&D for Production Programs – Application of S&E to deliver specified products with national value (defense/energy): Contract Production → Performance Specs → Sell for Profit. - BOTH of t hese programs work well - because their respective expectations, systems and incentives are closely and properly aligned. Sponsored “R&D” for “S&T” Innovation – Generate S&E outputs for commercial exploitation to generate beneficial socio-economic impacts. Scholarly outputs for tenure ≠ Corporate requirements for profit -HYBRID programs have many problems because their expectations, systems and incentives are misaligned or even incongruent!

Hybrid Programs intending Impact United States – –All SBIR & STTR Programs; NSF – Engineering Research Centers (ERC); Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers (I/U CRC); Innovation Corps (I-Corp); NIH – Program on Public/Private Partnerships; NIST – Technology Innovation Program (TIP); DoEd – Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERC); Field Initiated Development (FID). Canada – –Natural Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC); Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR). European Union – –Research Framework Programme; Innovation Framework Programme. Brazil – –Ministry of Science, Technology & Innovation.

Key Points about Operational Issues Federal grant priority/review criteria do not fully reflect standard practices for engineering development, technology transfer and industry production activities. Academic Grantees and “Peer” reviewers focus attention and resources on research agenda – academic incentives. No Industry presence. Investigators do not reserve resources for critical downstream transfer activities, as they are unrelated to short-term focus on funding research to generate publications for T&P.

Hybrid Programs: 3 Different Methods yield 3 different Knowledge Outputs Scientific Research Method► Conceptual Discovery Engineering Development Method► Prototype Invention Industrial Production Method► Commercial Product

Issues for Three Methods Each Method has own rigor and jargon, and each output state is unique. Actors are trained and operate in one method and over-value that method. All methods are essential and inter- dependent. Academic & Government sectors dominate policy at expense of Industry.

Project Mission: Integrate Concepts  Knowledge embodied in three distinct states: Know role of Research, Development and Production methods in context of project – plan and budget accordingly.  Initiate with Industry engagement: Government and academia projects intended to benefit society fail to cross gaps to becoming market innovations.  Apply evidence-based framework: Links three methods, communicates knowledge in three states, and integrates key stakeholder who will determine eventual success.

Need to Knowledge (NtK) Model Orientation – Actors engaged in innovation “need to know”: Problem/Solution; Methods/Outputs; Stakeholder roles; and Goal in context of beneficial socio-economic impacts. Integration – Product Development Managers Association (PDMA) New Product Development practices (implementation); Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Knowledge to Action Model (communication). Validation – Stage-Gate structure populated with supporting evidence (1,000+ excerpts) from scoping review of academic and industry literature 1985 – 2010, along with case studies drawn from author’s experience transferring 50+ inventions.

Need to Knowledge (NtK) Model for Technological Innovations

NtK Model helps explain where Market Innovations come from: Clarifies processes and mechanisms underlying technology-based Innovation, by integrating academic & industry literature. Establishes linkages between three distinct methods and their respective knowledge outputs for implementation/communication. Offers structure to sponsors & grantees for program/project planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.

Problem: NtK Model lacked details on Technical, Business & Marketing Analysis These analyses are required throughout all three Phases, while most Grantees are only familiar with a sub-set of them. Technical, market and customer analyses address three different yet equally critical issues for technological innovation. Knowing what you don’t know but need to do is critical to creating a successful transfer team.

Ireland/USA Partnership Dr. James Condron & Professor Eugene Coyle – School of Engineering, Dublin Institutes of Technology. Dr. Gerald Craddock & James Hubbard, National Disability Association, Ireland. Joseph Lane, Jennifer Flagg & Michelle Lockett, University at Buffalo, USA.

NtK Model’s Toolbox Go to tools for Technical, Marketing and Customer Analyses

Five Competency Categories Electrical/electronic engineering tools: measurement systems, design and testing systems and mass manufacturing tools. Material science tools: required to make the choice for a particular manufacturing material or to examine the characteristics of a potential material. Mechanical engineering tools: encompasses the generation and application of heat and mechanical power and the design, production, and use of machines and tools. Business tools: such as quantifying customer requirements, benchmarking, marketing tools, business feasibility, process improvement and return on investment. Inclusive/Universal Design tools: to ensure that the widest possible audience will be considered in the design process, regardless of age, size, ability or disability.

Type/Range of Tools

Distribution of 79 Tools by Group

Screen Image of Tool Summary

Related Publications Flagg, JA, Lockett, MM, Condron J & Lane, JP (2015). “Tools for analysis in Assistive Technology research, development and production.” Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 9, 1, Flagg, J, Lane, J., & Lockett M. (2013) “Need to Knowledge (NtK) Model: An Evidence-based Framework for Generating Technology-based Innovations.” Implementation Science, 8, 21, Stone, V. & Lane J (2012). “Modeling the Technology Innovation Process: How the implementation of science, engineering and industry methods combine to generate beneficial socio-economic impacts.” Implementation Science, 7, 1, Lane, J & Flagg, J. (2010) “Translating 3 States of Knowledge: Discovery, Invention & Innovation.” Implementation Science, 5, 1,

 Issues in Science, Technology & Innovation Policies.  Three States of Knowledge – Origins, Relationships & Transitions.  Comprehensive Model of Technological Innovation.  Tools for Effective Knowledge Translation.  Tools for Successful Technology Transfer.  Tools for Achieving Invention Commercialization.  Market Research Resources.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The contents were created under a cooperative agreement from the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (#90DP0054). NIDILRR is a Center within the Administration for Community Living (ACL), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The contents do not necessarily represent the policy of NIDILRR, ACL, HHS, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.